A house-rule that my table uses is that no deal is binding unless all parties touch the Dune planet in the corner of the game board. A player might use it once then they just can't be bothered to reach out and touch it. Laziness wins out over certainty.
Non binding deals certainly has more room for an interesting meta game to develop over multiple games. I’ve played a lot of Zoo Vadis recently which uses an interesting take on deals that kind of gives the best of both worlds. In that game deals within that round must be honoured but future promises are non binding. I think it’s a good way to stop the moments where you pay someone for something and they just take your money. Which isn’t a particularly interesting form of treachery and is a great way to ruin a new player’s game. It does still allow for betrayal and backstabbing and that ups the intensity and excitement over the long term. For example if you pay someone to go to a specific space in that round they must do it, but if you pay them to support you next turn they can still betray you. It’s interesting because people will still make future promises alol the time even though they know they are non binding and usually people stay true to their word. It’s also cool to see how once a player breaks a promise the entire table turns against them and will try to bring them down. Sorry for the long response, I just think this is a really interesting subject and Zoo Vadis is a great way to experience how binding and non binding deals can coexist in the same game.
The few games my group has tried without binding deals became much less interesting. Nobody trusted anyone else to follow through on any interesting deals, so it ended up being small stuff like Atreides bidding knowledge where the risks were low. Part of what we find so interesting about binding deals is that you can never know what the other person's angle is. Often a "good" deal has a catch that isn't found out until later. It's always fun and interesting trying to figure out the why behind a deal that isn't being presented, and that just feels so thematic and Dune. “When is a gift, not a gift?”
@@Eutress2 ah but “When is a gift not a gift?” is a perfect example of a non-binding deal. Atreides knew they couldn’t fully trust the Emperor, but the potential upside of the deal was too good to pass up. This is why I find it more thematic and interesting. A world with binding deals is far less dangerous, which is more likely to be boring. “The first step in avoiding a trap - is knowing of its existence.”
@ Happy to disagree! One great example: Our emperor bribed another player 20 spice (his entire treasury) to make a major attack on Carthag. This then forced another player to respond with equal force, and allowed the Emperor’s ally to secure a daring win against weaker foes elsewhere. These kind of huge deals, while possible, would certainly be less likely at our table because they could have just accepted 20 spice and done nothing. Non-binding deals work fine with trusting players, but between paranoid ones (like my group) it’s necessary to make deals work at all. The biggest takeaway from my table is that the really exciting, grand deals only happen because there is a guarantee.
I would have to play with non-binding deals to know for sure, but my gut feeling is that I wouldn't like that change. In fact I would go the other direction if anything and codify certain deals like give the classic "zero dial, lowest hero, no cards, no faction abilities" a special name that could be invoked so everyone is 100% clear on the wording of the deal.
Maybe Binding Deal can be broken, but you have disadvantage for rest of game. IN BATTLE, instead AGRESSOR is winner unless not broken rules. Or penalty of loss 5 spice of future incomes(1 spice per each spice income go into BANK, spice collection, choam charity, killig leader, give from payment for bidding, shipment,... = 1 spice ofrom each to be able to doing stuff). OR Score penalty in tournament.
Emporer his ability tio support ally should nbe limited, and maybe collecting spice for Treachery should be postpone till end of BIDDING phase, place in front of shield till end of BIDDING phase, money transfer in movement. Maybe even same for GUILD in process of shipment, Thelaxu end of revive and etc.
Having binding deals does not prevent non binding deals, in a way. You can still make secret deals with other players that are not binding, and of you need to pay spice for it you make a bribe for nothing. I don’t see what reason would there be to remove 1 aspect of the game if the alternative is already possible
I think if deals are non-binding ever, then in the most high stakes moments of the game deals will be useless. Because if its better to reneg, that player will reneg.
@@ericastrue4527 sure. But will it be better? Having played it that way for 30+ years I can report that deals were very rarely reneged. It wasn’t better to do so.
@@jackredathewarp Not necessarily better or worst, I'm quite sure it doesn't break the game one way or the other. I would have to try "only non-binding deals" but with my group at least I think people would then tend to not do any deals. Alternatively, if people can always do binding deals, if you make a non-binding deal it's very suspicios. Maybe there could be a sort of a notary cost to making a binding deal, such as both sides have to pay 1 spice to the bank. That would de-incentivise binding dealmaking, but still allow it.
I think binding deals are an important aspect of the game, particularly when spice is at stake. Without binding deals, if emp bribes 1 spice to Atreides for a card info, why would Atreides ever tell the truth? A good compromise is to say that deals without spice may or may not be binding especially since this incentives offering spice to make sure you get what you want done.
@@Ace_xD999 why would Atreides tell the truth? Perhaps because they want to get bribes again in the next round. Reneging on deals has a cost. The game would be better with the risk, because it forces players to truly weigh them.
@ Yeah that’s an interesting point, that the lie might come back to bite them but I guess that would only happen if the info buyer bought the card and found it wasn’t what they were expecting (or deduced from future card plays etc.). I guess it would create an interesting dynamic not having binding deals but I think I prefer having them in the game. Definitely worth trying though so thanks for the idea!
A house-rule that my table uses is that no deal is binding unless all parties touch the Dune planet in the corner of the game board. A player might use it once then they just can't be bothered to reach out and touch it. Laziness wins out over certainty.
Non binding deals certainly has more room for an interesting meta game to develop over multiple games. I’ve played a lot of Zoo Vadis recently which uses an interesting take on deals that kind of gives the best of both worlds. In that game deals within that round must be honoured but future promises are non binding. I think it’s a good way to stop the moments where you pay someone for something and they just take your money. Which isn’t a particularly interesting form of treachery and is a great way to ruin a new player’s game. It does still allow for betrayal and backstabbing and that ups the intensity and excitement over the long term. For example if you pay someone to go to a specific space in that round they must do it, but if you pay them to support you next turn they can still betray you. It’s interesting because people will still make future promises alol the time even though they know they are non binding and usually people stay true to their word. It’s also cool to see how once a player breaks a promise the entire table turns against them and will try to bring them down.
Sorry for the long response, I just think this is a really interesting subject and Zoo Vadis is a great way to experience how binding and non binding deals can coexist in the same game.
The few games my group has tried without binding deals became much less interesting. Nobody trusted anyone else to follow through on any interesting deals, so it ended up being small stuff like Atreides bidding knowledge where the risks were low. Part of what we find so interesting about binding deals is that you can never know what the other person's angle is. Often a "good" deal has a catch that isn't found out until later. It's always fun and interesting trying to figure out the why behind a deal that isn't being presented, and that just feels so thematic and Dune.
“When is a gift, not a gift?”
@@Eutress2 ah but “When is a gift not a gift?” is a perfect example of a non-binding deal. Atreides knew they couldn’t fully trust the Emperor, but the potential upside of the deal was too good to pass up. This is why I find it more thematic and interesting. A world with binding deals is far less dangerous, which is more likely to be boring. “The first step in avoiding a trap - is knowing of its existence.”
@ Happy to disagree! One great example: Our emperor bribed another player 20 spice (his entire treasury) to make a major attack on Carthag. This then forced another player to respond with equal force, and allowed the Emperor’s ally to secure a daring win against weaker foes elsewhere.
These kind of huge deals, while possible, would certainly be less likely at our table because they could have just accepted 20 spice and done nothing. Non-binding deals work fine with trusting players, but between paranoid ones (like my group) it’s necessary to make deals work at all. The biggest takeaway from my table is that the really exciting, grand deals only happen because there is a guarantee.
I would have to play with non-binding deals to know for sure, but my gut feeling is that I wouldn't like that change. In fact I would go the other direction if anything and codify certain deals like give the classic "zero dial, lowest hero, no cards, no faction abilities" a special name that could be invoked so everyone is 100% clear on the wording of the deal.
Maybe Binding Deal can be broken, but you have disadvantage for rest of game. IN BATTLE, instead AGRESSOR is winner unless not broken rules. Or penalty of loss 5 spice of future incomes(1 spice per each spice income go into BANK, spice collection, choam charity, killig leader, give from payment for bidding, shipment,... = 1 spice ofrom each to be able to doing stuff). OR Score penalty in tournament.
Emporer his ability tio support ally should nbe limited, and maybe collecting spice for Treachery should be postpone till end of BIDDING phase, place in front of shield till end of BIDDING phase, money transfer in movement. Maybe even same for GUILD in process of shipment, Thelaxu end of revive and etc.
Having binding deals does not prevent non binding deals, in a way. You can still make secret deals with other players that are not binding, and of you need to pay spice for it you make a bribe for nothing. I don’t see what reason would there be to remove 1 aspect of the game if the alternative is already possible
There a so many things to think about in Dune, and adding lies is a bit much for me! It os cutthroat enoough without it
@@ALDRO88 Arrakis is not a place for the weak.
I think if deals are non-binding ever, then in the most high stakes moments of the game deals will be useless. Because if its better to reneg, that player will reneg.
@@ericastrue4527 sure. But will it be better? Having played it that way for 30+ years I can report that deals were very rarely reneged. It wasn’t better to do so.
@@jackredathewarp Not necessarily better or worst, I'm quite sure it doesn't break the game one way or the other.
I would have to try "only non-binding deals" but with my group at least I think people would then tend to not do any deals.
Alternatively, if people can always do binding deals, if you make a non-binding deal it's very suspicios.
Maybe there could be a sort of a notary cost to making a binding deal, such as both sides have to pay 1 spice to the bank. That would de-incentivise binding dealmaking, but still allow it.
In any case, I do want to give it a try without binding deals altogether after hearing your reasoning
I think binding deals are an important aspect of the game, particularly when spice is at stake. Without binding deals, if emp bribes 1 spice to Atreides for a card info, why would Atreides ever tell the truth? A good compromise is to say that deals without spice may or may not be binding especially since this incentives offering spice to make sure you get what you want done.
@@Ace_xD999 why would Atreides tell the truth? Perhaps because they want to get bribes again in the next round. Reneging on deals has a cost. The game would be better with the risk, because it forces players to truly weigh them.
@ Yeah that’s an interesting point, that the lie might come back to bite them but I guess that would only happen if the info buyer bought the card and found it wasn’t what they were expecting (or deduced from future card plays etc.). I guess it would create an interesting dynamic not having binding deals but I think I prefer having them in the game. Definitely worth trying though so thanks for the idea!